|
updated files on the styles and titles of the British RF
Wed, 4 Oct 2006 05:27:19 +0000 (UTC)
alt.talk.royalty
previous
Francois R. Velde...
|
I have updated my files:
pierre_aronax...
|
Some links seem not to work.
Francois R. Velde...
|
Some more work is still needed, and I hope to have a chance to examine more
documents in the National Archives in the future. Ideally, one would need
to study the Royal Archives as well, but I have no hope of being able to do
so anytime soon.
The documents (letters patent, warrants, etc) are now in a separate page:
I think I now have a complete collection of all the relevant documents.
A guide to the files from the National Archives that I have transcribed:
Some interesting things I have come across:
* the renunciations of the Tecks and Battenbergs:
In a letter to Garter on June 27 (LCO 2/7300), Sir Claud Schuster, the cleck of the
Crown in Chancery, makes the following observation:
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
There is, of course, no precedent, so far as I am aware, for the renunciation in
England of titles conferred by a foreign Sovereign, and I suppose that properly
such a renunciation ought to take place according to the laws of the State according
to the laws of which the titles were granted.
pierre_aronax...
This won't be a surprise to most people here (with one noisy exception), but it's nice
to see it written explicitly from a very well informed source.
pierre_aronax...
|
Indeed. Obviously he speaks of the original title, which still continue
to exist and has not disappeared or been transmuted into a British
title by the fact it has been authorized in Britain.
|
* the title of Prince of the duke of Edinburgh:
Queen Elizabeth initially proposed in 1954 that he be created "Prince of the Commonwealth",
but this met with opposition from the Government. The alternatives of "Prince Consort" and
"Prince Royal" were rejected by the Queen. "His Royal Highness the Prince" seemed to find
favor with her, but when the matter was taken up again in 1957 it became "Prince of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and Territories",
although the last six words were dropped in the end.
* Prince Alastair of Connaught was supposed to be formally granted/confirmed the style
of Prince and Highness in March 1917 at George V's request, and a warrant was being
prepared when he changed his mind and dropped the matter.
* some interesting legal opinions on the problem of a posthumous heir, and on the
possibility of abeyance of the Crown between two sisters:
* the warrant of 1914 for the children of the duke and duchess of Brunswick was issued
CJ Buyers...
|
Surely not just a clerical error, a ministerial error, a legal error
and a sovereign's error. Since all of them would have been through and
the last signed the document.
|
CJ Buyers...
|
An how exactly is that proof that he was not a prince?
Does the omission of his earldom and barony provide evidence that he
wasn't either?
Had the first suggestion gone through, would that have been proof that
he wasn't Duke of Edinburgh?
Even if you are entirely correct about the birth certificate, the
inclusion of the title in a document signed by the king, constitutes
recognition of that title for that individual. Unless of course you can
Guy Stair Sainty...
|
Really? So in your view if a title is used in a document signed by the sovereign
that is legal recognition of that title? This is certainly
a novel concept. It certainly does not apply in the case of peerages (see the
Glamorgan case), nor does it apply in regard to foreign titles (a letter
addressed to someone using a foreign title and signed by the sovereign does not
constitute legal recognition thereof), so what principle do you apply to
establish that any document including a title and signed by the sovereign is
legal recognition of that title? Or do you differentiate between "recognition"
and "recognition of the title in law"?
Francois R. Velde...
|
The problems with this theory are numerous.
(1) if the LPs of 1948 constitute "recognition" (that is, not "grant"), recognition
of what? Where does the title come from? If it is a foreign title, how could this
CJ Buyers...
|
Quite obviously by the use of the word prince, the title of prince.
If it looks like an elephant, smells like an elephant, has a trunk, and
roars like one ...
|
CJ Buyers...
|
In the UK all titles derive from the sovereign, the font of all honour.
Whether a title originates abroad or not is of no moment in English and
British law. Read your own quotations of the Home Secretary's note.
|
be reconciled with the stated policy since 1932 of not recognizing foreign titles?
CJ Buyers...
|
Nope. That policy concerned the issuing of Royal licences.
Titles are recognised by the sovereign all the time in all sorts of
ways. They do not have to have a Royal license. Simply look in the
London Gazette. The most recent case was the bestowal of the MBE on the
Quaiti Sultana in the last Honours List. Other, slightly more distant
examples are the Aga Khan and his brother Prince Sadruddin, when each
received their KBEs.
|
If it is a British title, when was it conferred and why would it need to be
recognized?
CJ Buyers...
|
What on earth are you talking about? The use of a title is obvious
proof of its ownership by the person so addressed. That the document is
issued in the name of, seen and signed by the King, obviously evidence
that he recognises it as so belonging.
|
(2) by the same theory, George VI crossing out "Prince" shows that the recognition
had been withdrawn less than a month later.
CJ Buyers...
|
He seems to have struck out the entire reference to Philip proposed in
the original draft and added his ducal title without using the title of
prince. So what? Dukes are often referred in that way. In fact, the use
of prince together with Duke is very rare. It isn't the normal style.
Perhaps that is what the King had in mind.
He doesn't use all sorts of other titles belonging to the Duke, does
that mean he didn't enjoy them?
|
(3) this theory was apparently not known to British officials at the time. In
particular, the Lord Chancellor wrote in 1955 that documents including the
LPs of 1948 were "of no assistance in determining whether the Duke is a Prince
or not", and he wrote to the Prime Minister "I have received certain information
CJ Buyers...
|
The LC's difficulties in reading a text and not noticing the use of
the title is not my problem. Perhaps, like you, his eyesight was poor.
Who knows. Who cares.
|
which makes it appear that His late Majesty King George VI, in conferring upon
the Duke in 1947 the style "His Royal Highness" did not intend at the same time
to confer upon him the rank of Prince". (the "certain information" is the one
I gave about the style of the Duke at Prince Charles's birth registration).
CJ Buyers...
|
That was 1947. The LPs are dated 1948.
|
(4) this theory is not consistent with CJB's "interesting but not conclusive"
If he really believed his theory, he would have accepted long ago that the
Cumberlands were British princes, because they were so styled in royal warrants.
CJ Buyers...
|
A complete and utter red herring.
The exchange there speaks for itself, and has little to do with this
matter here. The question there was about whether or not the
Cumberland's were Princes or Princesses "of Great Britain and
Ireland", not whether they were princes. But then, it suits you not
to remember that and attempt the usual obfuscation, having missed the
obvious once again.
|
The soundness of a theory, of course, does not wholly depend on its propounder
of the moment being consistent, so point 4 is "interesting but not conclusive".
|
CJ Buyers...
|
Of course it doesn't apply in the case of peerages. Peerage law is
quite a different matter. Every title isn't a peerage and everything
that applies to peerages do not apply to titles generally. The
requirements for peerage titles are, and always have been, justifiably
more stringent than any other titles. The reason for that is perfectly
obvious. They touch upon membership of the legislature. Will you ever
understand the difference?
|
|
prove that it was an error and was corrected. One aasumes from what you
have written here that you have been all over the place and can find
nothing to suggest that it was corrected. Certainly, you do not seem to
be able to produce a correction.
|
at the request of the authorities in Brunswick who wished for an authoritative statement
of their position.
* are princes commoners?
"In Great Britain the style of "Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland" is merely a title, implies no notion of Sovereignty or
territorial supremacy and is restricted to Princes of the Royal Family. It
is purely a courtesy and the holders of that title remain commoners until
they are raised to the Peerage, the only exception being the eldest son of
the Sovereign who at birth or, as in the case of Prince Charles, at his
mother's accession to the Throne, immediately becomes Duke of Cornwall.
H. Austin Strutt, asst. under-secretary of state, in a memo prepared
for the Home Secretary in 1954. Of the writer, the Times wrote that
"there was probably no greater authority of his time on state and civic
ceremonial: in these matters his knowledge of precedents and precedence
was unrivalled and unchallenged."
|
|
